alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 21

- 0178 Filed January 12, 2022

BRANDON VANBUSKIRK , Plaintiff

- Appell ee ,
vs. ELSIE SEIFERT , Defendant

- Appell ant

.

________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cass County, Amy Zacharias , Judge.

Elsie Seifert appeals provisions of a paternity decree. AFFIRMED.

Theodore R . Wonio of Rasmussen, Nelson & Wonio, P.L.C. , Atlantic , for appellant. Robert J. Engler of Cambridge Law Firm, P.L.C. , Atlantic , for appellee.

Considered by Bower, C.J. , and Greer and Badding, JJ.2

BOWER , Chief Judge

. Elsie Seifert and Brandon VanBuskirk are the parents of a child b orn in August 2018. VanBuskirk was seventeen years old and still in high school when the child was born. Seifert was twenty. VanBuskirk filed a petition to establish paternity, custody, and related matters. Both parents sought physical care of the
chil d. After a trial, the court observed , “ To say that both parents have struggled
with immaturity is an understatement. ” Seifert appeals the decree placing the child in VanBuskirk’s physical care. This case was tried in equity , and therefore , our review i s de novo. Iowa R. App. R. 6.907. Because the district court observes the parties and witnesses, we give weight to its fact and credibility findings, but we are not bound by them. Iowa R. App. P. 6.904(3)(g); see In re Marriage of Larsen , 912 N.W.2d 444 , 448 (Iowa 2018). Our first and governing consideration is the best interests of the child. Iowa R. App. P. 6.904(3)(o).
T he trial court accurately described each parent’s shortcomings and immaturity, assessed the credibility of witnesses, and found it notable that a
witness who was once in favor of the child being placed in Seifert’s physical care testified the child was better cared for in VanBuskirk’s home. The court awarded joint legal custody, placed the child in VanBuskirk’s physical care , and ordered liberal visitation. On our de novo review, we agree with the trial court’s findings , and we therefore affirm.
AFFIRMED.
# C_2020320EN.01002103.xml

| 28.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 320/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 320/21

---

Order of the President of the Court of 23 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Saarbrücken — Germany) — Koch Media GmbH v HC

(Case C-785/19) (1)

(2020/C 320/44)

Language of the case: German

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 27, 27.1.2020.

---
# C_2018301EN.01004201.xml

| 27.8.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 301/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.8.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/42

---

Action brought on 2 July 2018 — Pharmadom v EUIPO — Objectif Pharma (W S wellpharma shop)

(Case T-403/18)

(2018/C 301/56)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Pharmadom (Boulogne-Billancourt, France) (represented by: M.-P. Dauquaire, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Objectif Pharma (Vandoeuvre-lès-Nancy, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word element ‘W S wellpharma shop’ — Application for registration No 14 494 751

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 March 2018 in Case R 1448/2017-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | refuse the EU trade mark application for all the goods and services covered; |
| --- | --- |

—

refuse the EU trade mark application for all the goods and services covered;

| — | order EUIPO, and Objectif Pharma if it decides to intervene in the proceedings, to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO, and Objectif Pharma if it decides to intervene in the proceedings, to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
# C_2021163EN.01000301.xml

| 3.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 163/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 163/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 4 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Förvaltningsrätten i Malmö — Sweden) — A v Migrationsverket

(Case C-193/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Border controls, asylum and immigration - Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement - Consultation of the Schengen Information System (SIS) in the examination of an application for a residence permit made by a third-country national for whom an alert has been issued in the SIS for the purposes of refusing entry - Article 25(1) - Schengen Borders Code - Entry conditions for third-country nationals - Article 6(1) and (5) - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 7 and Article 24(2) - Refusal to renew a residence permit for the purposes of family reunification on the ground that the applicant’s identity cannot be established with certainty)

(2021/C 163/03)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Förvaltningsrätten i Malmö

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: A

Defendant: Migrationsverket

Operative part of the judgment

Article 25(1) of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders, signed in Schengen (Luxembourg) on 19 June 1990 and entering into force on 26 March 1995, as amended by Regulation (EU) No 265/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 March 2010, must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State which permits the issue, extension or renewal of a residence permit for the purposes of family reunification, requested from within the territory of that Member State by a third-country national who is the subject of an alert in the Schengen Information System for the purposes of refusing entry in the Schengen area and whose identity has not been able to be established by means of a valid travel document, only where the interests of the Member State which issued the alert and which has first been consulted have been taken into account and where the residence permit is issued, extended or renewed only for ‘substantive reasons’ within the meaning of that provision;

Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) and, in particular, Article 6(1)(a) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not apply to a third-country national who is in such a situation.

---

(1)  OJ C 155, 6.5.2019.

---
EXHIBIT 23.1


              CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


The Board of Directors
MicroTel International, Inc.


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements (Nos. 333-74281, 333-71035, 333-69571, 33-22518, 33-72926 and
333-12567) on Form S-8 of our report dated March 3, 2000, relating to the
consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of MicroTel
International, Inc. appearing in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for
the year ended December 31, 1999. Our report contains an explanatory paragraph
regarding the Company's ability to continue as a going concern.



                                                 /S/ BDO SEIDMAN, LLP


Orange County, California
March 30, 2000
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 11.0

                Statement re: Computation of per share earnings

Reconciliations of net income per share and net income per share, assuming
dilution computations for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2000 and
1999 are as follows (amounts in thousands, except per share amounts):

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                     Three Months Ended     Nine Months Ended
                                                       September 30,          September 30,
                                                    --------------------   -------------------
                                                        2000       1999       2000       1999
                                                    --------    -------    -------    -------
<S>                                                 <C>         <C>        <C>        <C>
Numerator:

Net loss-numerator for basic and
  diluted net income (loss) per share............    $(2,179)   $(3,035)   $(3,156)   $(6,244)
                                                     =======    =======    =======    =======
Denominator:
  Denominator for basic income (loss) per
    common share weighted average shares.........     28,165     25,452     27,670     25,337

Effect of dilutive securities-stock option.......         --         --         --         --
                                                     -------    -------    -------    -------
Denominator for diluted income (loss) per
  common share...................................     28,165     25,452     27,670     25,337
                                                     =======    =======    =======    =======
</TABLE>

Potentially dilutive shares are excluded from the computation in loss periods,
as their effect would be antidilutive.
#### Michael G. KESELICA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Martin VAN EVANS; Attorney General for the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 05-6599.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 29, 2005.

Decided Oct. 6, 2005.

Michael G. Keselica, Appellant Pro Se. Ann Norman Bosse, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

*419Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Michael G. Keselica, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating both that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Keselica has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Keselica’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
30 Utah 2d 407

#### The STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Kenneth Glen ROBERTS, Defendant and Appellant.

No. 13481.

Supreme Court of Utah.

Feb. 5, 1974.

Bruce C. Lubeck, Salt Lake Legal Defenders Association, Salt Lake City, for defendant and appellant.

Vernon B. Romney, Atty. Gen., Earl F. Dorius, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salt Lake City, for plaintiff and respondent.

TUCKETT, Justice:

The defendant was found guilty of the crime of robbery on August 30, 1973, and thereafter sentenced to serve an indeterminate term in the Utah State Prison. From the conviction and sentence the defendant has appealed to this court.

It is the defendant’s contention in this court that the court below erred in refusing to submit to the jury the proposition of whether or not the defendant might have been guilty of an attempt to commit robbery.

On May 29, 1973, the defendant walked into the Holiday Motel in Salt Lake City where he pointed a gun at Arthur Miya-zaki and demanded the money. Miyazaki placed the money from the cash register on a table. The defendant picked up the money and turned away. Miyazaki grappled with the defendant and a struggle ensued during which the defendant freed himself and proceeded toward the doorway. Miya-zaki again caught up with the defendant at or near the doorway and a further struggle took place which continued to a point outside the building where the defendant was subdued. In the course of the second encounter the defendant dropped the money inside the building.

Defendant claims that the crime of robbery is not completed until the robber has escaped to a place of temporary safety. That contention is without merit. Evidence in this case shows a sufficient aspor-tation of the money to show that the crime of robbery had been completed at the time the defendant was apprehended.

The conviction of the defendant is affirmed.

CALLISTER, C. J., and HENRIOD, ELLETT and CROCKETT, JJ., concur.
**Order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 27 October 2008 – Buzzi Unicem v Commission**

**(Case T-241/07)**

Action for annulment – Directive 2003/87/EC – System of exchange of greenhouse gas emissions allowances – National plan for the allocation of emission allowances for Italy for the period from 2008 to 2012 – Commission Decision not to raise objections on certain conditions – Not individually concerned – Inadmissibility

Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them (Arts 230, para. 4, EC and 241 EC; European Parliament and Council Directive
No 2003/87, Arts 9 and 11) (see paras 17-23, 26-27)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ANNULMENT of the Commission Decision of 15 May 2007 concerning the national plan for the allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances notified by Italy for the period from 2008 to 2012, in accordance with Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32), inasmuch as the Commission makes its decision not to raise objections with regard to that national allocation plan conditional on withdrawal of the authorisation for installation operators to retain part of the allowances allocated in the event of ‘closure due to a production rationalisation process’. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Dismisses the action as inadmissible. |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders Buzzi Unichem SpA to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Commission. |
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7076

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ROBERT LAWRENCE PAYNE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CR-90-20-R, CA-96-920-7) Submitted: August 9, 2001 Decided: August 17, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Lawrence Payne, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Jack Bondurant, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Robert L. Payne seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure seeking relief from the order denying his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000) motion. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Payne , Nos. CR-90-20-R; CA-96-920-7 (W.D. Va. June 18, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
MEMORANDUM

DATE: October 26, 2011 FROM: Jennifer Chan , EPA/O W /O WM/WPD / RB TO: Docket EPA - HQ - O W - 2010 - 0257 , National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Discharges from the Application of Pesticides SUBJECT: Inc orporation by reference of Docket EPA - HQ - O W - 20 10 - 0 852 . The content of Docket EPA - HQ - OW - 2010 - 0852 , ICR: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permits for Point Source Discharges from the Application of Pesticides to Waters of the Unite d States contains information that is relevant to Docket EPA - HQ - OW - 2010 - 0257 . Docket EPA - HQ - OW - 2010 - 0852 is hereby incorporated by reference into Docket EPA - HQ - OW - 2010 - 0257 .
NO. 07-09-0231-CV

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL D

	DECEMBER 8, 2009

	______________________________

	CHRISTOPHER H. JUNCO D/B/A AAA MAXX A/C & HEATING, APPELLANT

	V.

	BEST PUBLICATIONS, LLP, APPELLEE

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 47TH DISTRICT COURT OF RANDALL COUNTY;

	NO. 58,793-A; HONORABLE HAL MINER, JUDGE

	_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ.

	MEMORANDUM OPINION

	Appellant Christopher H. Junco d/b/a AAA Maxx A/C & Heating filed a notice of appeal from a summary judgment order entered against him on May 4, 2009.  The clerk’s record was filed on September 3, 2009.  No reporter’s record was made.

	By letter of November 17, 2009, the Court reminded appellant that his brief was due no later than Friday, November 6, and thus was past due. The letter notified appellant that his appeal was subject to dismissal for want of prosecution unless his brief was filed, along with a motion for extension of time, by Monday, November 30.  See Tex. R. App. P. 38.6.

	An appellate court may dismiss a civil appeal for want of prosecution if an appellant fails to timely file a brief unless the appellant reasonably explains the failure and the appellee is not significantly injured by the failure. Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1). On its own motion, with ten days' notice to the parties, an appellate court may dismiss a civil appeal for want of prosecution or failure to comply with a notice from the clerk requiring a response or other action within a specified time. Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b), (c). Here, appellant has not filed a brief or a motion for extension by the date specified by the Court, despite notice that his failure to do so would subject the appeal to dismissal. The Court has given the parties the required ten days' notice.

	Accordingly, we dismiss appellant’s appeal for want of prosecution and failure to comply with a notice from the Court. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1); 42.3(b), (c). 

							James T. Campbell

							         Justice
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<CIK> 0000880052
<NAME> TOWNE FINANCIAL CORP./OH
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           2,310
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             297
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 2,800
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     26,369
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          13,710
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            13,690
<LOANS>                                         71,461
<ALLOWANCE>                                        270
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 122,317
<DEPOSITS>                                      98,409
<SHORT-TERM>                                        15
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              1,715
<LONG-TERM>                                     12,674
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           222
<OTHER-SE>                                       9,282
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 122,317
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  4,512
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,669
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   208
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 6,389
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               3,662
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,217
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            2,172
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       23
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  33
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  1,637
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,016
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         714
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       714
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     3.39
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     3.17
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    2.61
<LOANS-NON>                                         95
<LOANS-PAST>                                       245
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   264
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       17
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  270
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                18
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            252
        

</TABLE>
# C_2022237EN.01000301.xml

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 28 April 2022 — Changmao Biochemical Engineering Co. Ltd v European Commission, Hyet Sweet SAS

(Case C-666/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Dumping - Imports of aspartame originating in the People’s Republic of China - Regulations No 1225/2009 and 2016/1036 - Temporal scope - Article 2(7) - Market economy treatment - Denied - Article 2(10) - Adjustments - Burden of proof - Article 3 - Determination of injury - Duty of care of the European Commission)

(2022/C 237/03)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Changmao Biochemical Engineering Co. Ltd (represented by: K. Adamantopoulos, dikigoros, and P. Billiet, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented: initially by T. Maxian Rusche and N. Kuplewatzky, subsequently by T. Maxian Rusche and A. Demeneix and, finally, by T. Maxian Rusche and K. Blanck, acting as Agents), Hyet Sweet SAS

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Changmao Biochemical Engineering Co. Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Changmao Biochemical Engineering Co. Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 383, 11.11.2019.

---